Supreme Court Turns Away Suit Challenging CIA Secret Prison Program

[JBeukema]

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a lawsuit challenging a controversial post-Sept. 11 CIA program that flew terrorism suspects to secret prisons. The appeal asked the court to examine two controversial aspects of the U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks, "the extraordinary rendition" program that sent the suspects to secret prisons and the "state secrets privilege."
The high court has refused several other appeals based on the government's invocation of state secrets to derail lawsuits.

Supreme Court Turns Away Suit Challenging CIA Secret Prison Program - FoxNews.com

 

[TheBrain]

Good for them. Now if they would just rule that public execution of terrorists was legal.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a lawsuit challenging a controversial post-Sept. 11 CIA program that flew terrorism suspects to secret prisons. The appeal asked the court to examine two controversial aspects of the U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks, "the extraordinary rendition" program that sent the suspects to secret prisons and the "state secrets privilege."
The high court has refused several other appeals based on the government's invocation of state secrets to derail lawsuits.

Supreme Court Turns Away Suit Challenging CIA Secret Prison Program - FoxNews.com

But I thought, according to the Obamabots that we stopped doing that?

 

[George Costanza]

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a lawsuit challenging a controversial post-Sept. 11 CIA program that flew terrorism suspects to secret prisons. The appeal asked the court to examine two controversial aspects of the U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks, "the extraordinary rendition" program that sent the suspects to secret prisons and the "state secrets privilege."
The high court has refused several other appeals based on the government's invocation of state secrets to derail lawsuits.

Supreme Court Turns Away Suit Challenging CIA Secret Prison Program - FoxNews.com

But I thought, according to the Obamabots that we stopped doing that?

This Obamabot is highly opposed to continuing the policy of rendition.

 

[whitehall]

The world didn't begin after Bush won the presidency. The pervert who slimed Monica's dress took time to authorize extraordinary rendition before 9-11 and so did Reagan. I expect Barry authorized it also.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Supreme Court Turns Away Suit Challenging CIA Secret Prison Program - FoxNews.com

But I thought, according to the Obamabots that we stopped doing that?

This Obamabot is highly opposed to continuing the policy of rendition.

As am I and I did not nor ever will vote for Obama.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Aw, dem judges always like to get on their soap boxes...

At term's end, Supreme Court opinions anything but brief
13 June`11 WASHINGTON — Asked what would happen if the Supreme Court began writing shorter opinions, Chief Justice John Roberts said, "We could all leave earlier in the spring, I guess, than in summer."

But then Roberts caught himself and told his interviewer, legal-writing expert Bryan Garner, that that wasn't really true. "I'm sure that it's harder to write shorter and crisper than it is to write long and dull," Roberts said in a 2007 exchange recently published in a law journal. The Supreme Court has entered the season of the long opinion. June is finals month of the annual term, when the nine justices finish the toughest cases that have been pending since early fall — including, this term, a dispute over California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors.

"It certainly is a nerve-racking time," says Washington lawyer John Elwood, a former law clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy and now in private practice, often at the high court. "In some cases, a justice might be writing an opinion and still not have a majority. In some cases, the justices are just having footnote wars." That's one version of a tit-for-tat that can delay a case, as draft opinions are circulated, and justices on opposing sides simply cannot stop responding to the other's arguments.

The longer a case has been awaiting resolution, the longer the decision is likely to be, and the greater the number of justices weighing in with dissenting or concurring statements. One case handed down on the last day of the last term, involving gun-owner rights, ran for more than 200 pages over five separate opinions. A total of 23 cases are scheduled to be resolved over the next three weeks. Since the 2010-11 session began last fall, 53 signed decisions have already been issued.

Each week of oral arguments, held October through April, the justices vote in a private session on the cases heard. The most senior justice in the majority assigns the opinion for the court, and the most senior on the dissenting side assigns that opinion. Anyone can write a concurring opinion or a separate dissent. The process usually goes smoothly, but June is different. Justices struggle with the cases heard recently in spring, as well as older ones from fall and winter that defied swift resolution.

MORE

See also:

Supreme Court cases left to cram into term
A look at cases still outstanding:

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (formerly Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association): Whether a California law banning the sale or rental of violent video games to minors violates the First Amendment.

Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes: Whether a class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart can go forward under federal rules for such litigation allowing one or more people to sue as representatives of a group with similar interests.

McComish v. Bennett,Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett: Whether an Arizona campaign-finance law that gives extra funds to candidates who participate in the public-financing system when their opponents who don't participate spend money beyond a certain limit impinges on the speech rights of the privately funded candidates.

Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan: Whether a Nevada ethics law forbidding public officials from voting on matters that could be affected by a relationship to someone in their household, a relative, business partner, or a person "substantially similar" to those specified is unconstitutionally vague.

Sorrell v. IMS Health: Whether a Vermont law that prohibits pharmacies from selling prescription information to be used for drug marketing without a physician's consent violates speech rights.

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut: Whether federal judges — as opposed to U.S. regulators — may order utilities to curtail their emissions and cut greenhouse gases; the dispute tests the separation of powers among branches of government.

Source

 

[whitehall]

The CIA failed in it's "intelligence" mission consistantly since it's inception during WW2. The CIA failed to warn the US about Korea in the early 50's, the Berlin Wall in the early 60's and everything else including traitor Lee Harvey Oswald running wild. While the CIA was playing war games all over the world the 9-11 hijackers were attending US flight schools literally under their noses. Even with their incredible (secret) budget the fools failed to detect the 9-11 attack. Intelligence is what we pay them for not flying unmanned drones or pointing out potential targets on the battlefield. The CIA is an out of control political bureaucracy which takes advantage of weak presidents, mostly democrats. The Kennedy mess in Cuba and the little Bay of Pigs army is an example. The concept known as "Extraordinary Rendition" where suspected terrorists would be interrogated in foreign countries out of US jourisdiction, was instituted during the Clinton administration. If president Bush made any mistakes it was not firing every fat assed bureaucrat in the CIA. He continued CIA policies which started during Clinton.